1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).‑‑Facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant, while serving as an Assistant in the Law Division of WAPDA was charge‑sheeted on 15th November, 1981. The charge‑sheet is reproduced; "You Mr. Shafi Ahmad Khan son of Khurshid Ahmed, Assistant of Law Division WAPDA (under suspension) are hereby alleged to have committed the following irregularities ; (i) That you were directed by Deputy Director (Litigation) to dis cuss case `L.A. 17826' with him vide para. 68 thereof but instead of discussing the case, you have given the following remarks on the file which are irrelevant and unparliamentary; "Because of your rude and unreasonable behaviour for the last 6 months I cannot discuss with you. You may write on what specific point you need clarification and I shall try to explain it in writing." The above remarks are uncalled for which tantamounts to wilful insubordination. (ii) That similarly you refused to discuss/speak Case No. L. A. 2/80 (Chairman), L.A. 20444/75 and L.A. 25921/81 in which you were specifically directed by the Deputy Director (Litigation) to dis cuss/speak these cases with him. These are glaring examples where you have shown complete disregard to the orders of your superior. This shows your unreasonable conduct and thus you committed breach of discipline. (iii) That you committed serious irregularities by delaying three appeal cases, for which you were held responsible. By not filing appeals the Authority had to suffer great loss. By taking a lenient view you were warned vide offce letters quoted hereunder ?6 to improve your work (i) LA‑II/81/4258, dated 26th April, 1981. (ii) LA‑16729/74/6365, dated 14th June, 1981. (iii) LA‑7633‑34, dated 30th July, 1981. But you failed to mend your ways and later on a letter dated, 12th May, 1981 which was received from Mr. Shahid Hussain Jillani, Advocate, Rawalpindi on 17th May, 1981 and diarised vide No. 3268 regarding Appeal in the case of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. WAPDA was put up by you on 8th June, 1981 after an abnormal delay of about 21 days. Due to this delay the period of limitation for filing appeal in the said case had expired, which caused a loss to the Authority. The overall responsibility for expiry of limitation period, lies with you being the concerned official. You have thus committed gross negligence and carelessness against the interest of the Authority. (iv) That you were asked by Deputy Director (Litigation) to put up the appeal case of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad v. WAPDA vide his order, dated 27th June, 1981. You submitted the case to Deputy Legal Advisor, WAPDA, on 6th July, 1981 i.e. after a period of 9 days, and by that time the limitation period for filing appeal upto 30th June, 1981 had expired. Despite verbal warnings you have again committed gross negligence and carelessness in the performance of your duties. (2) If the above allegations are proved you will be guilty of `mis conduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978, as applicable to you and will render yourself liable to all or any of the penalties described in rule 4 of the said Rules. (3) You are, therefore, hereby required to put in your written defence within 14 days of the receipt of this Charge Sheet stating at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person. (4) Your defence reply should reach the undersigned within the stipulated period, failing which it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and an ex parte action will be initiated against you. (5) Statement of Allegations is enclosed not considered necessary by the Tribunal." (Sd.) (Nasir Said), Chief Engineer (S & GA), WAPDA."

2. The appellant furnished his defence reply on 8th December, 1981. An enquiry was conducted to establish the charges. The Inquiry Officer in his report, dated 13th March, 1982 held the appellant guilty of charges (i) and (ii). The appellant was also held guilty of charge (iii), in so far as it related to delay in the case of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. WAPDA as well as charge (iv).

3. Vide the Office Order, dated 25th April, 1982, the appellant was removed from service. The appellant's departmental appeal to the General Manager (Administration) initiated on 30th May, 1982 resulted in another Office Order, dated 24th June, 1982 whereby the penalty of removal was modified to that of retirement. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 18th July, 1982. It was beard on 11th July, 1984 and is being disposed of by this order.

4. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. We also went through the personal record of the appellant which is good. The enquiry proceedings, too, were available for our perusal.

5. A careful consideration of this case leads us to the con clusion that the behaviour of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Director Litigation, towards the appellant was doubtlessly, responsi ble in driving the letter to a breaking point and forcing him to writ the notes which he did and which could be termed as rude. Where as, we do not condone the rudeness of subordinates towards their superiors, we cannot, by the same measure, overlook the rudeness of superiors towards their subordinates. Rudeness of superiors, amounting to bad manners and injuring the self‑respect of subordinates is clearly distinguishable from their (superiors) Firmness based on Gentleman behaviour. If we blame the appellant for his rudeness in the instant case, we cannot exonerate the Deputy Director concerned (Muhammad Aslam) who, though not on trial before us, is the complainant in this case le and at whose behest the appellant was punished.

6. That the action taken in this case, has been based on mala fide intent is further borne out by the fact that the appellant was referred to the medical authorities for psychiatric opinion as he was dubbed a mentally sick person. The medical board declared the appellant to bed sound both physically and psychologically.

7. The circumstances of this case are such that the punishment of retirement based on bad faith, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, therefore, we set aside the said punishment. The appellant shall stand reinstated into service with effect from the date of his retirement and shall be deemed to have never been retired. Instead, we impose the penalty of stop page of one increment without cumulative effect. All the consequential benefits flowing from this order would be available to the appellant.

8. No order as to costs. A. E. Orders accordingly.